[SHOP US, SHIP KOREA] From $7.50 (1LB) + $1.74 per pound only! Use the Ohmyzip U.S. a tax-free state address as your shipping address at checkout. Sign up now to get a 10% off coupon on shipping. <Freight Forwarding Service / Courier Service>

Indeed. Experience has shown me youtube videos are a complete waste. Better things to do with my time. I'm sure you do as well. You'll notice, however, I was happy to read the article links you provided.

I did my thesis on Urban Legends, this was years before there was a commercial Internet and a site called Snopes. My approach to claims about Urban Legends and the institutions that investigates them is academic. Give me data, not a collection of cherry picked anecdotes. And, please, spare me Youtube videos, unless you can briefly summarize the key points you find compelling. If you can't do that, it leads me to think you've not actually watched it yourself or you have and you actually can't articulate anything compelling. There's a way to prove me wrong, of course...

Anyway, the notion the DNC banned the display of the American flag, as the urban legend suggests, on Day 1 is, on the face of it, pretty ludicrous. You don't have to be a recycle-bin toting Portland Fareless Square Liberal to step back and go "ummm, really? In this election cycle the DNC is going to do that?" They didn't even do that during the anti-Vietnam hippy era. Challenging that notion, and even making an error, does not indicate bias. It's like when John McCain challenged a woman's suggestion that Obama was a secret Muslim terrorist. McCain noted Obama was a good man that simply had a different political opinion. Is McCain showing his liberal bias? Or is he simply, you know, rational and believes challenging lies of any kind is apolitical?

I did my thesis on Urban Legends, this was years before there was a commercial Internet and a site called Snopes. My approach to claims about Urban Legends and the institutions that investigates them is academic.

To be fair Toronto.. you ignored the facts in my post. This is what you said:

Quote from: TorontoTornoto

I don't see anything in the linked CT article that has anything other than the word of one Iranian rando to dispute the what motivated the turn of Iran's assets.

The article did not hang on the word of some "Iranian rando", it is based on what the Iranian Government said.

Yep, senior Iranian defense officials described the money as a ransom payment.

This was repeated by Irans Fars News Agency. Quoting a Brigaddier general.

Fyi a Brigaddier General is not some random person. It is close to the highest military rank possible.

A letter from the Iranian government that says, in effect, “you have something of ours and we have something of yours,” isn’t exactly the same as a traditional ransom note, but it’s close enough for horseshoes, hand grenades and government work.

The fact that the United States sort of owes Iran money gives Washington a face-saving way to half-plausibly say it did not pay a ransom demand, but let’s keep in mind why American policy forbids paying ransom demands in the first place. If kidnapping American citizens is profitable, more American citizens will be kidnapped. If kidnapping American citizens is a waste of effort, money, and time—if, instead, it is punished—far fewer American citizens will be kidnapped.

Paying a ransom that isn’t technically a ransom encourages hostage-taking almost as much as paying a regular ransom. Which is why we shouldn’t do it.

“The trouble is,” says NPR reporter Michele Keleman, “since then, Iranian authorities have arrested more Westerners. They're now holding three Iranian-Americans as well as dual nationals from the U.K. and Canada.”

Aurata, both nations agreed before hand to return Iran its assets. The USA would have done this regardless if Iran had 4 US prisoners. The USA got 4 prisoners released by offering to speed up the return of assets. Feel free to call this a ransom if you wish. But it's a little more complicated and nuanced than that, as the Snopes article tries to show.

There are certainly some issues that need to be addressed in the USA with the election of Trump. If there is viable proof of Russian interference or even assistance that should be a huge red flag to the world.

Not to mention the current headlines of wanting to expand the nuclear arsenal and the expulsion of the diplomats from the USA.

There are certainly some issues that need to be addressed in the USA with the election of Trump. If there is viable proof of Russian interference or even assistance that should be a huge red flag to the world.

Not necessarily. Russia could have hacked the emails. If Assange were to reveal his source, and it was proven to be Russian (he's careful in saying that it's not a state party - but that's all he says), then there is no red flag to be had.

What's interesting about this whole thing is that it really doesn't matter who hacked whom. The information gathered is by far more important. I for one wish that every politician was hacked - then we'd know the real extent of corruption around the world.

We are all being led by corrupt morons - that's the reality of things.

There are certainly some issues that need to be addressed in the USA with the election of Trump. If there is viable proof of Russian interference or even assistance that should be a huge red flag to the world.

Not necessarily. Russia could have hacked the emails. If Assange were to reveal his source, and it was proven to be Russian (he's careful in saying that it's not a state party - but that's all he says), then there is no red flag to be had.

What's interesting about this whole thing is that it really doesn't matter who hacked whom. The information gathered is by far more important. I for one wish that every politician was hacked - then we'd know the real extent of corruption around the world.

We are all being led by corrupt morons - that's the reality of things.

Me personally, I can't help but wonder why Russia is so excited to install Trump. Just for profits? Probably the half of it.

Me personally, I can't help but wonder why Russia is so excited to install Trump. Just for profits? Probably the half of it.

I highly doubt that Russia is 'excited' to install Trump, but they did see him as being less likely to start a war with Russia, as opposed to Clinton. I think most leaders around the globe would have been more excited if neither Trump nor Clinton were on the ballot.

Me personally, I can't help but wonder why Russia is so excited to install Trump. Just for profits? Probably the half of it.

I highly doubt that Russia is 'excited' to install Trump, but they did see him as being less likely to start a war with Russia, as opposed to Clinton. I think most leaders around the globe would have been more excited if neither Trump nor Clinton were on the ballot.

Have you noticed that there is still a lot of discussion relating to the election regarding the alleged Russian hacking? The New York Times, etc. writes stories about it, but probably less concrete evidence has been given about it than the non-existent WMD in Iraq.

Although this could partly (even largely) be related to domestic politics (delegitimizing Trump), aggressive actions against Russia seem unwarranted without concrete proof. These sorts of election rigging claims will only bring about international tensions and possibly threats of wars, whether proxy wars or even a major war. So if there is no concrete proof of Russian hacking (which mysteriously surfaced after Hilary lost), the Democrats and others making these claims should STFU. I am not going believe anonymous officials or officials making vague claims no matter how many agencies can be cited.

If the Democrats continue along this path, the best hope of a Democratic victory in future elections seems to be the Republicans screwing things up/making people unhappy.

Are the Russians capable and even willing to try to influence the election? Hell yes, and vice versa. But unless there is concrete proof, would it not be better for the Democrats and others opposed to Trump to use a different strategy? Why did Trump pick up white working class voters that Obama won? I would be willing to place a large wager that it was not because people were thinking about Russia or Vladimir Putin on their way to work or when they were searching for jobs. And I guarantee you that a different female candidate could have beaten Trump.

Me personally, I can't help but wonder why Russia is so excited to install Trump.

Its not surprising you are wondering.. because it appears you have only ever looked at mainstream media.

Russia is happy to see Trump enter the White house because they have had nothing but antagonism and provocation from neo-con administrations ever since Bush senior and bill Clinton.

Quote from: hippo

Have you noticed that there is still a lot of discussion relating to the election regarding the alleged Russian hacking?

mainstream media is still controlled by the globalists, and they are committed to either destroying trump or bringing him into their power.

If Trump wants to survive he needs to carry out media reforms, because the popular media has become a propaganda ministry for the 1%.

Point one I get my news from a variety of sources, sorry infowars isn't one of them.

Point two Trump manipulated the media to get unprecedented free coverage from his antics as a candidate, in return the media got ratings.

"The Atlantic’s daily media tracker, which tallies television mentions of the candidates, shows Trump dominating. As of March, journalism’s obsession with Trump had totaled the equivalent of about $2 billion in free media, according to an analysis by mediaQuant, a company that uses advertising rates to assign a dollar amount to the amount of media coverage a candidate gets. Hillary Clinton had garnered about $746 million in free media at the time, The New York Times reported, while Bernie Sanders free media totaled about $321 million. (“Free media” doesn’t necessarily help a candidate, though. Though Trump seems to embrace the “no publicity is bad publicity” mantra, his favorability ratings among voters are miserable.)" http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/09/trumps-media-saturation-quantified/498389/

But all of this is not the point. The point being at what point is it unacceptable for foreign governments to help ANY candidate??

Have you noticed that there is still a lot of discussion relating to the election regarding the alleged Russian hacking? The New York Times, etc. writes stories about it, but probably less concrete evidence has been given about it than the non-existent WMD in Iraq.

Although this could partly (even largely) be related to domestic politics (delegitimizing Trump), aggressive actions against Russia seem unwarranted without concrete proof. These sorts of election rigging claims will only bring about international tensions and possibly threats of wars, whether proxy wars or even a major war. So if there is no concrete proof of Russian hacking (which mysteriously surfaced after Hilary lost), the Democrats and others making these claims should STFU. I am not going believe anonymous officials or officials making vague claims no matter how many agencies can be cited.

If the Democrats continue along this path, the best hope of a Democratic victory in future elections seems to be the Republicans screwing things up/making people unhappy.

Are the Russians capable and even willing to try to influence the election? Hell yes, and vice versa. But unless there is concrete proof, would it not be better for the Democrats and others opposed to Trump to use a different strategy? Why did Trump pick up white working class voters that Obama won? I would be willing to place a large wager that it was not because people were thinking about Russia or Vladimir Putin on their way to work or when they were searching for jobs. And I guarantee you that a different female candidate could have beaten Trump.

You say this is because the Dems lost, do you remember the birther movement? Let's get off this oh its just the Hillary/globalists plotting to unseat Trump. There are GOPers who agree with many of the findings regarding the Russian threat.

Let's flip this around, can you imagine the outcry if Obama was quoted flattering Putin and Putin flattering Obama. There would be Tea party-ers in the streets flaunting their open carry rights. But because Trump is a Republican he gets a pass. Let's not forget the cold war started with Reagan.

If the Dems wanted an excuse for all out war they would have capitalized off the events in Crimea or Syria.

Thunderlips, I am not Aurata. I do not believe in some "globalist" movement because I do not know what people mean when they talk about "globalism." It could mean very different things depending on who you are talking to. Also, I think *any* other Democratic candidate or even Republican candidate would have been preferable to Trump--even Ben Carson. I still don't know what Trump stands for other than promotion of Donald Trump.

Ironically, in some of the WikiLeaks leaks the Democrats wanted Trump (or a candidate such as Ben Carson) to win the Republican nomination because they thought he would be easy to beat. The Democrats were effectively in favor of Trump as nominee.

Yes, I remember the birther movement and moreover see the continual winks and nods to white supremacist groups, etc. But Democrats did not foresee a Trump victory. Even the Trump campaign probably thought they were going to lose at the very end. The Democrats are trying to delegitimize his election by linking it to a foreign power now that the Democrats lost. US citizens have been taught to hate and fear Russia for a *long* time. I remember getting under school desks to somehow avoid atomic blasts when I was a kid.

Granted, many people voted for Trump because of racist reasons. However, many people voted for him because of economic anxieties created by shifts in the economy toward automation, job displacement, migration of factory work to other countries. This seems highly irrational but so it goes. Rather than address these realities, Democrats want to turn to resort to Red-Baiting several decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Reagan did not start the Cold War. US soldiers fought in Russia to stop the Bolsheviks under the Woodrow Wilson administration. The US cut off relations with Russia until the FDR administration and essentially only became friends because of the threat of Germany. The atomic Cold War started in the 1940s under Democratic administrations and the Russia-US rivalry has roots that predate the very existence of the Soviet Union. Harry Truman replaced Henry Wallace, who was a proponent of a much friendlier/less hostile approach to the Soviets, as Roosevelt's VP during his last term. I always think of the Cold War as starting with the atomic bombings of Japan, as the US had broken Japan's code (indicating they were close to surrender) and to prevent Russia from gaining a foothold in Asia, as Russia invaded essentially Japan essentially at the same time as the bombings in accordance with wartime treaties that had been worked out. It is possible that the bombs would have dropped without US-Soviet antagonisms (buried in popular media during the Second World War), but it is inconceivable that the Truman administration did not think of the bombs as a diplomatic weapon/bargaining chip. In any case, if you still think Reagan started the Cold War, explain how Germany got divided into two countries.

Leaders of both US political parties praise leaders just as bad as Putin all the time. It's considered okay when they are our allies.

Again, it's seems extremely possible that Russia interfered in the election. However, why should we believe any of this without evidence? Either concrete evidence should be given or it should not be raised as an issue at all. It's possible that the government cannot reveal concrete evidence without giving away other surveillance programs. That's a pity because there is nevertheless no reason anyone should believe intelligence agencies after COINTELPRO, the Vietnam War, the "slam dunk" case for WMDs in Iraq, etc. etc. etc. These are agencies which spread disinformation all the time. It's better to be skeptical of these organizations and risk a "boy who cried wolf" situation than believe them. Look at the mess in Iraq, the fallout in neighboring countries from Iraq, the starvation in Yemen. This is the fruit of US intelligence. Why should you believe these intelligence agencies secret reports?

In regard to Crimea, Syria, all out war, etc., I *seriously* doubt anybody wants an all out war, but there is the possibility that things could get out of control. Even if the chance of all-out war was low, it would not want to be a chance worth taking.